Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) bimaculatus Luze, 1904, syn. n.

(Figs. 5, 12)

Coprophilus bimaculatus Luze, 1904: 79

Coprophilus bimaculatus: Bernhauer, 1908: 330 (as synonym of longicornis) Coprophilus bimaculatus: Bernhauer and Schubert, 1911: 89 (as synonym of longicornis) Coprophilus (Zonoptilus) bimaculatus: Tóth, 1991: 91 (lectotype designation, valid species) Coprophilus (Zonoptilus) bimaculatus: Tóth, 1992: 376

Coprophilus bimaculatus: Herman, 2001: 1312

Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) bimaculatus: Smetana, 2004: 511

Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) bimaculatus: Schülke and Smetana, 2015: 766

Type material examined. Lectotype ♂, Tadjikistan “TRKST. JAGNOB | FL. DSCHIDSCHIGRUT | Glasunov 1892” “ bimaculatus m. det. Luze Type> “Col. et det. A. Fauvel | Coprophilus pentatoma Fvl. | R.I.Sc.N.B. 17.479” “Lectotypus ♂ 1990 C. (Zonoptilus) bimaculatus Luze | det. dr. Tóth L.” “ Coprophilus (Zonyptilus) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 | det. M. Gildenkov, 2016 ” (IRSNB).

Discussion. The structure of the body and the aedeagus of the lectotype of C. bimaculatus are similar to those of the lectotype of C. pentatoma . The lectotype of C. bimaculatus differs only in having yellow apices of the elytra, which cannot be regarded as a sufficient reason to retain the validity of the species. Thus, the synonymy is established: C. (Z.) pentatoma Fauvel, 1897 = C. (Z.) bimaculatus Luze, 1904, syn. n.

Remarks. Coprophilus bimaculatus is almost identical in its coloration to C. longicornis and this was apparently the reason why they were considered as synonyms (Bernhauer, 1908). However, when the lectotype was designated (Tóth, 1991), C. bimaculatus was accepted as valid species. A detailed discussion of C. bimaculatus as a valid species and illustrations of its aedeagus (Tóth, 1991), which are allegedly different from the illustrations of the aedeagi of C. pentatoma and C. longicornis, should be regarded as erroneous.